Do you consider James J Jeffries an ATG?

Try the 1973 issues Mac.

 

They are in the loft my partner has taken over the box room where all my boxing memorabilia was ,and turned it into a play room for the grand kids.I guess I'm just under the thumb!

 

Noooo i reckon you'd be the boss!!! He seems to allude a 73 issue has the goods and i am curious as to whether he is talking shyte or not.

 

I can't remember Jeffries ever being placed in the number one spot.

 

This content is protected

 

"I do not doubt Fleischer had some abnormal affection for Jim Jeffries"

Some one who has no doubt about something he knows nothing about is only exposing himself.

Fleischer's high opinion of Jeff as a boxer was widely shared. I remember Groucho Marx on his TV show commenting after he posed a question about Jeffries to a contestant that he thought Jeffries the greatest heavyweight champion. Fleischer and Jeff would have rarely seen each other as Jeff lived in LA and Nat in New York. I wonder how often they even met, if at all prior to Nat going out west to interview Jeff in 1950 when Jeff turned 75.

Nat actually seems to have been much closer to Dempsey and also considered Johnson a friend, rating Johnson above anyone as a boxer.

 

It has been mooted that Fleischer never saw Jeffries fight.

 

Perry, this may come as a surprise to you, but there were a great many people who didn't hold those views, and were progressively trying to change things. He didn't "have to" maintain those views, he chose to, and he is held accountable for that. I agree that some consideration is made for the time, but that doesn't mean he gets a carte blanche

 

Well, I have read that Nat saw the Johnson-Jeffries fight, but I don't disagree that Nat's opinion of Jeff's in prime prowess might not be worth all that much. But my post was about the fatuous insinuation that Nat considered Jeff a great because of an implied personal attraction.

 

The views of Jim Jeffries are irrelevant to his greatness as a fighter.

Many heavyweight champions said some crazy stuff or expressed repulsive views. Whether in step or out of step with their times.
The most interesting case of course is Muhammad Ali (whose racist views were becoming increasingly out of step with his times), but only interesting because he's revered as a great man outside the ring, he transcended boxing and is frankly very interesting.
But a guy like Jeffries, who is nothing historically except a boxer, and was considered a dull bore in his own era. His views are easy to ignore.

 

This is what I like about these type of threads. New information such as this can come to all.

The question is, will posters like Rich accept it?

Author John McCallum does a brief summary and biography of each boxing champion from each weight class, the heavyweights going up to George Foreman. At the end of the book, McCallum had conducted a survey of the top 10 fighters based on the opinions of old time fight managers. The Survey has 12 people in it...I think and was taken in the 1960's, which could explain Ali's lower ranking as he did not yet face or beat Frazier, Norton or Foreman,

Top 10 Heavyweights according to Survey of Old Timers:
1. Jim Jeffries
2. Jack Johnson
3. Bob Fitzsimmons
4. Jim Corbett
5. Jack Dempsey
6. John L. Sullivan
7. Gene Tunney
8. Joe Louis
9. Rocky Marciano
10. Muhammad Ali

By 1970 most of whom who saw the past generation of boxers died out. Films were lost.

Now here's where it gets interesting to me, the ones with films such as Johnson, Tunney, Louis and Marciano went up in rankings, while the ones without Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Sullivan and Jeffries declined in ratings.

 

Jeffries twice defeated Corbett in huge 25 x 25 rings. The advantage in a very large ring would be Corbett's. I hope you learned something new. A standard boxing ring is usually 20 x 20. 500 square feet ( 25 x 25 ) vs 400 square feet. ( 20 x 20 ).

To reiterate, Corbett at age 33 was very sharp and well trained. His own people considered it his best ring effort in Jeffries 1, and he lost. End of.

 

I think this is 90% correct and props for showing how young Mcvey and Martin where.

Johnson could be viewed as the top contender from 1904-March 1905 until he lost to Marvin Hart. About 1.5 years. Hart vs Johnson was viewed as an elimination for Jeffries!

Post beating Munroe in 1904, it is a fact Jeffries mentioned Jack Johnson as a possible title opponent to the press.

Perhaps if Johnson had beaten Marvin Hart, and there was Reno like purse, he takes the money.

What fighters say and what they do often changes when a lot of money is on the table. I suspect that will not change win the next 100 years!

Jeffries also offered Johnson a private fight, Johnson refused. Had he taken his lumps or even exaggerated about the outcome, maybe Jeffries would have become enraged like he did vs Munroe and offer him a shot? there is a chance. But the large purse offer was the best chance, and that ship sailed once Hart defeated Johnson.

 

This list shows the limits of the old timers and the distorted perspective they brought to the table. Louis at #8 when he had the longest reign and most defenses? Marciano with his perfect record at #9? What actually did Corbett do which was all that impressive other than defeat an old, fat Sullivan? The consensus for these voters seems to have been that boxing was going down hill fast while it was spreading in popularity across the US and indeed across the world.

This sort of list is exactly why I prefer historical judgments based on performance rather than h2h guesswork.

 

Well, I think you are more right than wrong about Martin, and about McVea as a pre-1905 challenger.

But then you went completely off the rails with the private fight idea. That's nuts and why should any pro fighter agree to it. And if Johnson won would Jeff then have given him an official chance at the title? Why would anyone think that?